Defendant No.1 in a partition suit sought to amend his written statement to add a counter claim for family liabilities; the trial court rejected it and the High Court upheld the rejection, holding a belated counter claim impermissible under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18993 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.B. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S.M. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O MITLAKATTE VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577004.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577004.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.06.2024 IN OS NO.134/2021 ON IA NO.4 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARIHAR, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F OF OS NO.134/2021 BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR AND THIS PETITION IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.134/2021 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 12.06.2024 by which, an application (I.A.No.IV) filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the written statement was disallowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:44869 WP No. 18993 of 2024
for the defendant No.1 and after perusing the written statement filed, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant No.1 was not entitled to raise a counter claim at a belated stage.
defendant No.1 claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- for construction of a house on Sy.No.35/3. He claimed that at the time of commencement of construction, he
had disposed off 0-11 guntas and used the sale proceeds for the construction and by the time the construction was completed, the total cost was a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. He claimed that he had raised loan of Rs.60,00,000/- from private financiers, which had to be repaid. He claimed that he had incurred liability of Rs.20,00,000/- for the purpose of sinking a borewell, leveling the land and raising arecanut plants. Thus, in all, he claimed that he was liable to pay Rs.80,00,000/- to private financiers and therefore, the plaintiffs were also liable to bear the liability.
amongst Hindus that a heir not only inherits the asset but also the liability to the extent of share in the asset. The defendant No.1 is bound to prove the liability, in which event the Court
would mould the relief appropriately.
but subject to the above observation.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
2 issues framed by the court
Whether defendant No.1 could amend his written statement to add a counter claim at a belated stage after plaintiffs' evidence concluded.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
S.B. Manjunatha
S.M. Savitramma
S.M. Jyothi
S.M. Rekha
S.M. Sushmitha
Gouramma
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
